We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Which technique is better for detection of right-to-left shunt in patients with patent foramen ovale: comparing contrast transthoracic echocardiography with contrast transesophageal echocardiography.
Echocardiography 2014 October
BACKGROUND: At present there is no consensus on which technique is more suitable for the detection of right-to-left shunt (RLS) in patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO). The aim of study was to compare the efficacy of contrast transthoracic echocardiography (cTTE) and contrast transesophageal echocardiography (cTEE) in the detection of RLS.
METHODS: A prospective study was undertaken in 29 patients with PFO. Both cTTE with harmonic imaging modality and cTEE with fundamental imaging modality were performed for all the patients. The severity of RLS were semiquantitatively assessed with a four-level grade system by scaling the numbers of microbubbles (MBs) in the left atrium after complete opacification of the right atrium within the first 3 cardiac cycles. Level 1 represents no MBs, indicating no RLS. Level 2, ≤10 MBs, indicating mild RLS. Level 3, 11-30 MBs, indicating moderate RLS and Level 4, >30 MBs, indicating severe RLS.
RESULTS: Contrast TTE demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity for detection of RLS than cTEE (86% vs. 56%, P < 0.05). For cTTE, there were 4, 1, 5, and 19 cases determined at levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, whereas for the same group of patients 13, 2, 6, and 7 cases were identified by cTEE at levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The severity of RLS detected by cTTE was significantly greater than that by cTEE (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Contrast TTE is more efficacious in the detection of RLS than cTEE. The former can be used as an alternative to the latter in clinical practice.
METHODS: A prospective study was undertaken in 29 patients with PFO. Both cTTE with harmonic imaging modality and cTEE with fundamental imaging modality were performed for all the patients. The severity of RLS were semiquantitatively assessed with a four-level grade system by scaling the numbers of microbubbles (MBs) in the left atrium after complete opacification of the right atrium within the first 3 cardiac cycles. Level 1 represents no MBs, indicating no RLS. Level 2, ≤10 MBs, indicating mild RLS. Level 3, 11-30 MBs, indicating moderate RLS and Level 4, >30 MBs, indicating severe RLS.
RESULTS: Contrast TTE demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity for detection of RLS than cTEE (86% vs. 56%, P < 0.05). For cTTE, there were 4, 1, 5, and 19 cases determined at levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, whereas for the same group of patients 13, 2, 6, and 7 cases were identified by cTEE at levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The severity of RLS detected by cTTE was significantly greater than that by cTEE (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Contrast TTE is more efficacious in the detection of RLS than cTEE. The former can be used as an alternative to the latter in clinical practice.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app